36 posts in this topic

Interesting to hear the costume department's thoughts in that video. A lot of creative people on the film, pushing their hardest - and yet still the leap necessary in the costumes and sets wasn't enough to bridge the gap to 48fps 4K in 3D.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

some here are too analytic about new technology you forget to take advantage of the practical tools already in play. real pro's just work and play along as the years go by and not hit forum boards with irrelevant theory.

Trust me, real pros ARE discussing it as much as everyone else if not more...

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

some here are too analytic about new technology you forget to take advantage of the practical tools already in play. real pro's just work and play along as the years go by and not hit forum boards with irrelevant theory.

And some continue to make the error in thinking everyone they interact with on forums is JAFO. They make guesses.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Well, I just got back from the theater. Needless to say, the high frame rate and 3D were not the true problems with this film. I'm still not sure what I just watched, but it wasn't Tolkien's The Hobbit.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Well, I just got back from the theater. Needless to say, the high frame rate and 3D were not the true problems with this film. I'm still not sure what I just watched, but it wasn't Tolkien's The Hobbit.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I just came from seeing the film. I disliked it as a film. There was one part that worked, and that was the gollum stuff. Everything else blaah.

I really had no problem with the 3d 48fps...except that the movie was so boring that I constantly looked at the fakeness of everything. When it worked, it really worked (gollum scene) but Jackson isn't talented enough to make this work properly. I have a feeling Cameron will pull it off way better.

You NEED a proper story. With proper characters. And better sets...this looked like it was shot on a soundstage somewhere. You can't film stuff like you used to when we can clearly see all the trickery. Like lighting rain from the front so we can see it. Yeah, we can also see how it is lit. How the cave is plastic. How unnaturally lit everything is.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Again, I would argue that almost none of the problems with this film lie in the production execution. So what if you can see how the rain was lit? Sure, I'd prefer it to be less obvious, but I've been completely sucked in by many good stage plays that had far less realistic scenery (heck, I've been sucked in by shoddily shot films before too).

My biggest beef (SPOILER ALERT) is that so much of the original plot is removed, and what is left of it gets rushed through in order to get to the newly created parts or to a Mario-esque action sequence. WHY didn't Bilbo invite Gandalf to tea? WHY no Green Daragon meeting? (oh wait. I remember. BILBO DIDN'T EVEN AGREE TO GO WITH.) Why approach three trolls unarmed . . . just because? What happened to being cold, hungry and wizardless? Why is Voldemort riding a white warg?

Why mess with Riddles in the Dark . . . AT ALL?

Why change the original when there is plenty room and to spare for added backstory? I have recently re-read The Hobbit, and it would make a passable script as-is (certainly it would be a better script than whatever piece of trash was used for Jackson's "retelling").

I am going again in a few hours, and I'll admit that sometimes I change my mind after viewing a film again; we'll see, but I doubt that's going to happen.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Trust me, real pros ARE discussing it as much as everyone else if not more...

you missed my point. hence the website domain name. I came here initially to see the magic of indie filmmaking talk, not bitching about protocols most here don't have access to or not even SHARE particular experiences on the field for this 48fps topic.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

you missed my point. hence the website domain name. I came here initially to see the magic of indie filmmaking talk, not bitching about protocols most here don't have access to or not even SHARE particular experiences on the field for this 48fps topic.

An apparent focus of this website for some time (and one that interests me) has been the relationship between current inexpensive gear to both upcoming technology/products and to more expensive gear that is (or has been) used in higher budget productions.

High-Frame-Rate (HFR) is something that indie-shooters need to make a conscious decision about, just as they have with 3D. Shooting 4K 48 FPS currently requires over $9k of equipment, but shooting 50 FPS or 60 FPS is possible on many inexpensive cameras (either at 1280x720 or 1920x1080, depending on the model).

So indie-shooters do have the option of shooting HFR content if that is either what they think look best (or what they think the audience wants). Many people are likely very sensitive as to whether they are likely to be called upon to start shooting that sort of content or not - and whether there camera can do so and what resolution they can do it at.

I'm reserving judgement on how well it works in 3D in theatres. I can tell you that I do not like it at all for what I think of as traditional narrative film-making in 2D. I would greatly favor if I was not pressured to shoot content that felt better suited to 2D in 24FPS as 2D 48/50/60FPS. This isn't just academic - the market reaction to films in that format is a big factor in determining the presence or absence of that pressure.

Do indie-shooters really want to have shoot at a different frame-rate (or have to buy a different camera to upgrade to 1080 50/60P from 720 50/60P or even 720 24/25/30P) if they don't find it more aesthetically pleasing? I would say no. So I think each of us really should think about (and voice) whether the exhibition format seems to offer advantages to our eyes.

I'll wait to weigh in on 48 FPS 3D after I've actually seen it. I'm currently planning on seeing the Hobbit film in at least 2 formats (24 FPS 2D

and 48 FPS 3D) and possibly even 3 (24 FPS 3D) just to be able to weigh in as objectively as I can (acknowledging that my experiences with HFR 2D have biased me against the 3D version and trying to compensate for that).

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Its quite jarring at the beginning but you become accustomed to it after a while and can then begin the serious business of not being that fussed on it purely as a film.

Martin Freeman is so closely associated for me as Tim from The Office anyway but the fact that he's more or less playing Baggins as Tim from The Office takes you out of the moment far more than a frame rate could ever do.

The three people with me loved it though.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Martin Freeman is so closely associated for me as Tim from The Office anyway but the fact that he's more or less playing Baggins as Tim from The Office takes you out of the moment far more than a frame rate could ever do.

Having seen him in Love Actually andThe Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy as well as The Office, I never tied him to a particular franchise. So that's at least one thing I won't have to worry about. :)

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Well, I've seen it twice, in 2D and 3D both. There is so much blurry action, it disgusts me. Even in 2D I couldn't make head nor tale of what I was looking at during several action sequences. In 3D, all that is amplified into a downright nightmare. Jackson didn't shoot this with 3D in mind. I've already pretty much spoken my mind concerning the story itself.